Actors are just glorified Tools

[Shai Gar]

you know what i hate? people who judge movies or call them by their casts and not by their director/writer. as if books are valued by their characters instead of the people who take the time and effort to write them for the reader. actors are nothing but well paid liars and sluts.

i LOVED the william dheil books "Primal Fear" "Show of Evil" "Reign in Hell", martin vail is my favourite fiction lawyer and the stories that william has created with martin vail are tremendous, when the first book got transferred to the silver screen, sure as always they destroyed the basic characters of Martin Vail and Naomi Chance (amongst others) by casting who they cast, but the director did what he could and it was borne on his back and not that dipshit greyhaired man.

i went a tad off topic but basicly stayed there, as if that made sense. die hard was a very good movie as it entertained me, but it was the director who entertained me in the long run, not bruce willis. the matrix overawed me but it was not keanau reaves who made me think and gave me those brilliant fight scenes, it was the two writers/directors.

discuss

[CoHo]

The writers create the scene, the directors direct it and the actors act it. You need good people in all stages for it to work.

Would you have enjoyed the matrix if Neo was played by Billy Boyd (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0101710/) or Robert Vaughn (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001816/)? I know I wouldn't have.

You need to have the right person for the right role. So who you pick is just as important as how the script is written.

[Shai Gar]

if the other person playing the part of neo was fit enough to play the part i would not have known the difference.

neither of those choices seemed inappropriate to me.

actors, glorified sluts and pretenders. well paid.

[file cabinet]

I think britney spears would've been a better choice then keanu.. what do you think? I also believe morpheus should've been courtney love. maybe then the movie would have topped the charts of best all time movie. also, trinity should've been played by some bum off the street(the director could easily have found an excellent fit).

[CapnEnnui]

Apparently, most actors are intuitive types. Though there are the pretty types who suck at acting too... I mean, I agree with you, writing is much more important, and then directing comes in a close second. But shitty actors are just blatantly obvious, and even a good story can be mucked up by an unbelievable performance. It ruins the suspension of disbelief... the solution usually is that bad actors play like emotionless boards, and it's clearly because the very few times they show emotion it's unbelievable and overblown. Like Keanu Reeves. And have you ever seen Denise Richards "act"? But people usually don't notice because they don't realize how much better it would be if someone with acting talent was playing that part.

Then again, acting still has the most uneven ratio of work difficulty to pay.

[ApeTheDog]

I don't know. I thought Denise Richards was really convincing as 'sexy girl' in Wild Things. Method acting I suppose.

I agree. Actors are overrated. They should be a tool, and the actor who gets the part should be the one who can act it/looks like it the best, not the one with the big name. For example, Leonardo Di Caprio in the aviator? In my mind, he is definately not the best cast for this part. Here's a kid playing an old man. It's absurd, but that's hollywood I guess.

I must say, the best acting I've ever seen is usually by unknown actors in not so big movies. I just can't sympathise with Julia Roberts in a movie anymore because, no matter how much her character suffers, I know that this is Julia Roberts, no the character, and I know that she's getting paid a zillion dollars. Instant loss of sympathy in my eyes.

[CapnEnnui]

I watched Starship Troopers recently cause it was on HBO and I had nothing else going on. First I noticed how it was a giant militant conservative future world that sounds like rigid hell, then I noticed how Denise Richard never conveys any emotions and always has the same dumb expression and dull, monotonous delivery.

As for Julia Roberts, she's not a good actor at all. But maybe I just can't stand her.

[crule81]

Shai Gar, I generally agree with your theory as it pertains to movies. Most "popular" actors really can't act very well and are somewhat interchangeable. More importantly, we see only one performance with a set cast. We simply have nothing to compare it to unless it is re-made several years later.

However, when it comes to the stage, acting makes a huge difference. For example, take almost any Shakespeare play. I've seen King Lear on several occasions. One performance was so-so. Another, with a the same director, but different actors, was the best performance of any kind I have ever witnessed.

[CoHo]

Then again, acting still has the most uneven ratio of work difficulty to pay.

I would put professional golfers above actors as far as having the least amount of work for the pay. They don't even need to look nice.

[CreativeChaos]

You know? According to the DVD "Extras" of "The Gladiator"; in Roman times, Actors were indeed as low on the "social" pole as gladiators. They were "untouchables".

[Shai Gar]

yes i agree, theatre and opera requires skill. but in this instance i am talking about movies. certainly temporary dispersal of belief requires decent acting skills, but decent acting skills do not require millions of dollars, simply training and there are adequate people who want into the profession who are skilled enough to do this. make them tools, dont make them the commanders